Question: 1920's -30's Fabric Roof sections - Why?

I'm appealing to HAMBers to answer this question, why did the sedans and coupes in the 1920's & 30's use a fabric section in the middle of the roof?

I've been told various reasons for this such as, "it was cheaper than steel", "they couldn't stamp sheet metal that big", "they did it to save weight", and so on. None of the reasons I've heard seem to make sense. The fabric & wooden bows must have cost more than a simple steel section and they could certainly stamp out big pieces of sheet metal back then. The weight saving idea sounds a little hollow also since weight savings didn't seem to be a major concern on the rest of the car's components (but I wouldn't rule it out). So what's the real reason?

 

And Henry Ford said "let there be inserts" and they came to be. I don't think there is any really concrete solid good reason for using inserts in the roof. Maybe they were trying to create more jobs? Probably Henry was just an old crotchety man that didn't want to change from the early days of open cars.

 

yep!

 

Then why not weld in a sheetmetal piece where the fabric section goes? The roof & body are several pieces of sheetmetal anyway.

I'm not looking to stir the pot here - just asking.

 

i dont think the automated welding process was perfected by that point either especially to be used on such a large area
it would have slowed down the assembly line alot probably

time is money

 

I'm with ranchero...these explanations just don't seem to ring true. Wasn't Dodge or Plymouth producing all steel sedans (with no roof inserts) by 1928? If so, the technology was available. At least one company that made bodies for Plymouth was also making bodies for Ford.

 

technology and the stamping of the big panels i guess. we cannot forget that the early part of the 20s most of all cars were open. another thing did you ever hear when you were young that you were lucky to have a roof over your head(lol) mike

 

plymouth and dodge didn,t have steel tops until 37, don,t remember if the airflows did or not.

 

Some companies definitely had steel roofs long before Ford. I've heard the 'technology not available' reply since I was a kid. My dad was in the Early Ford V8 club for 30 years, and that is what the 'restorer' crowd always says. But really, Ford spent years developing the flathead V8- I can't see stamping extra metal to be as big of a challenge, especially pre-'35 when the curvature is limited. It wouldn't suprise me at all if Henry had a deal with a chicken-wire company or leatherette producer to buy trucks from him in exchange for patronage. He used smilar tactics with paying workers $3.00 a day so they could afford to buy new cars, and using soybean oil in paints and plastics to get farmers to buy his vehicles.

 

One of the problems was that the available steel was not really advanced enough metalurgically for a 'deep draw" stamping process. That, combined with the lack (and cost) of the multi-ton presses required for "deep draw" forming of large sections like the roofs of full sized sedans made Ford hold to the 'old' ways of production. The Dodge and Plymouth sedans in the early thirties also had fabric top inserts. There was very little available then in the line of "automatic" welders, other than spot welders in the 1930's. You also have to remember that Ford was a 'for profit" organization.---they weren't about to run out and spend millions of dollars on new, relatively unproven technology, when their customers still accepted the older technologies, i.e. fabric roof panels.

 

It probably carried over from horse carrages. Canvas was very common for wagons tents etc and a repair probably was cheap to fix in those days.
Ford was a penny pinching sob. I dont think the technology was there even if it was I bet if he could save 2 cents on each car he would keep the canvas.

 

I think by design the roof was too flat to make it one big panel without warpage.

 

Various statements found on internet (from various sources):

The first all-steel body is attributed to the Budd Manufacturing Company (1915) in Philadelphia. Dodge was the first large company to use the Budd principle (early 1920s).

In August 1931 Ford adopted the all steel truck cab manufactured by the Budd Company for both Model A and AA trucks. This was the first all steel body in the industry [large truck industry] .

From Wikipedia: In 1924, Citroën began a business relationship with American engineer Edward G. Budd. From 1899, Budd had worked to develop stainless steel bodies for railroad cars, for the Pullman in particular. Budd went on to manufacture steel bodies for many automakers, Dodge being his first big auto client. In 1928, Citroën introduced the first in Europe.

Citroën introduced mass production on the American pattern into France. With the B10 in 1925, he introduced France's first all-steel body.

Except for the enclosed cab Ford truck, it is unclear if any of these were sedans or coupes.

 

Airflows had an insert too. It's kind of a combination of reasons. First, the technology to draw metal more than about 3" wasn't perfected. Also, most bodies were built by hand, and it was hard to make each one the same. So if the top was made from multiple pieces, the time involved to weld and lead several pieces was more than installing the insert. The Budd company was the one that came up with the method of deep drawing metal so the top could be made in one piece, and was licensed to GM in 1934. It took a few years for all the manufacturers to get on board, but by 1937 most of them were there.

 

It seems clear to me that Ford had the technology available to make coupes (at least) with an all steel top beginning at least as early as the 1932 model year. If they could make all steel pickup cabs with no insert, there is no obvious reason that they could not do the same with a coupe. For whatever reason, they chose not to but it was not because they did not have the technology available (using the same the Budd method).

 

My guess is the tolerance buildup was very bad on those bodys. In other words, that rectangular hole up there varied greatly in size. we can't imagine that because of current technology. canvas was the perfect adjustable material to fill that opening .

 

If I understand it correctly, the Budd drawing method would not result in a hole that had to be filled. The roof would be drawn in one piece.

 

Pic of the first all steel roof Ford, 1931 enclosed cab truck: http://idisk.mac.com/forever4/Public/pages/1931buddcab.htm

 

The Dodge Bros were also designers for ford but that didn't mean that they were gonna give away all their secrets. They actually had all steel coupe roofs in '23 the first all steel american made car.

Now here's something you should think about:

#1 The roof was easier to build in several pieces as has been mentioned.

#2 Curved pieces are easier to weld together without major warpage.

#3 and here's the biggy because it involves getting your hands dirty. Weld an insert onto the roof of a sedan or coupe. Donot use a wire welder they weren't around yet. You'll have to keep it in a condition that it can be slathered with gloss black paint and look show room worthy. Now imagine doing that on a very early assembly line.

not the answer to the question but its something to think about, I'm sure that henry did.

 

Good points, but I think that there is a retort to each one.

Dodge did not own the process, Budd did. It was not even licensed to Dodge. Budd built those bodies for Dodge. Budd apparantly did not even have an exclusive contract with Dodge.

Welding up a roof out of mulitple pieces simply could not have been easier than welding on one whole roof at the windshield post and B-piller. No major welding warpage is likely from welding in those locations...some does happen though as evidenced by the factory leading done in those locations on the Sixties cars. But, in fact, the b-piller would not be welded. The roof would be bolted to the b-piller on the early cars, correct?

They would not have been welding a panel into the rectangal opening, they would have been welding (or attaching by some method) on a whole roof made from one piece of steel.

Not trying to be argumentative, and not even trying to say my thoughts on this are absolutlely correct. Really just thinking this through "out loud".

 

there is a hell of a lot of difference between a pickup roof and a 32 couple roof. a 32 roof is twice the size with much more shape to it. it takes a big press. even if ford DID have the big presses, it would have been a juggling game to run all the parts, fenders would have required a big press as well. any parts that could be run on a smaller press would save money in the end. also, to stamp a 32 roof in one piece would require a seam right through the c pillars. it probably would require a multi stage press operation to make flanges to weld to etc., them more manual labor to weld and lead the seam in a very obvious area.

we take a lot for granted now days with computers, CNC machines etc. remember that the dies would have to have been machined with manual machines, finished by hand. if a die didn't work as expected, rework would be very expensive and very time consuming. Ford wasn't in the business of developing stamping processes, Ford was in the business of selling cheap cars. i've experienced first hand how much effort goes into developing dies, i work in a tool room that designs and builds small dies for the medical industry, even with cnc machines it can take weeks to make a die small enough to hold in your hands perform as expected. look at how long it's taken brookville to tool up to build the coupes, they've been years in the making. that is with modern technology, ford didn't have years to get a new model to market.

 

While Ford apparantly did stamp and assemble some of their own bodies, many and maybe most, came from outside contractors...like Budd and Murray.

 

regardless of who does the work, it still has to be paid for. a more expensive process makes more expensive parts.

 

Budd was already setup to produce bodies using this method, and overcame such production issues as those you mentioned as early as 1923. However, I think that we are getting close to the answer with this line of thinking. My theory is that while Budd was setup to produce bodies in this manner, and could keep up with the lower production of Dodge and Ford truck cabs, it could not keep up with all other Ford production requirements. The other contractors were not set up for the process, and Budd may not have been willing to share it with them. Ford may not have been willing to pay the Budd licensing fee in order to use the process themselves, and was only forced to do so to remain competitive after GM did so in 1935.

 

If you go to archive.org and download the "master hands" series, you can see the 36 chevy roof panels coming off in 1 piece. It is a very big press.
It's a fantastic movie and well worth a look anyway. You can see the 49 ford roof being bashed out in the movie "human bridge" from the same source.
Mart.

 

The technology for solid metal roofs was surely available somewhat prior to 1937. I believe, the expense of buying the machinery for deep drawing and developing the process for production, just didn't make economical sence until 1937. Bottom line; when it became less costly to do it, they did it. The only other consideration I can think of, would have been customer satisfation and having lived with the insert roofs for so long, it probably wasn't a big factor for people buying vehicles in the Ford price range. Just adding my 2 cents.

Snipe

 

I think that probably cost the biggest factor that has been mentioned. You have to remember that Ford was selling cars to the masses of a country that was financialy challenged.

Something to remember is that its not just the cost of tooling for the parts to be fabricated that is in question. Retooling an assembly line is also very costly. It may be that it was just cheaper and easier to not make major changes at the time and get all the ducks in a row for when it absolutely had to happen.

 

Looks to me like we have arrived at the consensus that reason #1 "it was cheaper than steel" is the correct answer, whatever the details of that cost may have been...whether production costs or costs of licensing the Budd method. Reason #2 "they couldn't stamp sheet metal that big" has effectively been dismissed by the facts. Seems like reason #3 "they did it to save weight" was not even worth addressing.

 

Ray really nailed the reasons here. Tooling is an HUGE part of the cost of producing anything forged, stamped, or molded.

Remember, that during this time frame, the country, indeed the world, was in the depths of a depression. Ford, GM, Dodge, Packard, and every single other auto manufacturer was fighting for their very economic lives - just like today. Any place that costs could be controlled while still producing a product that the consumer wanted was considered. The bottom line to this whole conversation is $$$$, same as it is today. Plastic body panels, "space saver spares", multiple body styles sharing a chassis platform - all these are akin to the cloth top of the 30's.

 

If Henry did it that way it was likely the cheaper way to go.